Swedishguy
Deity
Well, some Poland nationalists say that Poland had a Golden Age. If Poland had, explain when and why.
Poland had a Golden Age?
- Thread starter Swedishguy
- Start date
St Exupère
Warlord
Poland's Golden Age could be in the near future; there is going to be a strong christian renaissance in Europe, most likely from the east, and probably fueled by the possible end of the catholic/orthodox schism. Poland will in all likelyhood be at the forefront of such renaissance. Their economy is doing better and better, they have important diasporas all over Europe and in the USA. What they need now is to fix their catastrophic demography - it has not been low for too long, so the trend is still reversible if tackled now.
Also, if some events start unfolding the way I think they could in the world, Poland will have a very, very key role in Europe and should be able to greatly benefit from it.
Also, if some events start unfolding the way I think they could in the world, Poland will have a very, very key role in Europe and should be able to greatly benefit from it.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
At the time of their union with Lithuania, Poland was huge:
But it was in a commonwealth with Lithuania, so it's not entirely its merit, though I think a significant part of it is.
This is possible, considering Greece and Romania showed and increase of 2% in Christianity in the last 3 years, and Bulgaria an increase of 1% in the last 2 years.
Spoiler :
But it was in a commonwealth with Lithuania, so it's not entirely its merit, though I think a significant part of it is.
St Exupere said:
This is possible, considering Greece and Romania showed and increase of 2% in Christianity in the last 3 years, and Bulgaria an increase of 1% in the last 2 years.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
TheLastOne36 should be here in a few seconds....
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
TheLastOne, Ishon, Squonk, etc. 
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Where is the commonly seen face of Catherine she is TEN seconds late for her hour long post. maybe (s)he is typing it....
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
I'm here guys!
As Mirc pointed out earlier in this topic, Poland did have a golden age. Between the 15-17th centuries was the golden age of Poland. Poland was at it's largest, (see his map) and many battles were fought. (Battle of Vienna where we save Austria from becoming Muslim, is just one of them.)
Much of the land was Lithuania's, but it was more or less just Lithuanian inhabited lands. Poland "modernized" the lands to it's time, and Poland basically revolutionized the Lithuanian lands. Poland played the key role in the commonwealth just like Austria did with Hungary. So comparing Poland-Lithuania with Austria-Hungary is a good idea when you want to compare poland to something. <(i have no clue what i just sayed)
I think many westerners lack the knowledge of eastern europe and what happened there. (mainly americans)
As Mirc pointed out earlier in this topic, Poland did have a golden age. Between the 15-17th centuries was the golden age of Poland. Poland was at it's largest, (see his map) and many battles were fought. (Battle of Vienna where we save Austria from becoming Muslim, is just one of them.)
Much of the land was Lithuania's, but it was more or less just Lithuanian inhabited lands. Poland "modernized" the lands to it's time, and Poland basically revolutionized the Lithuanian lands. Poland played the key role in the commonwealth just like Austria did with Hungary. So comparing Poland-Lithuania with Austria-Hungary is a good idea when you want to compare poland to something. <(i have no clue what i just sayed)
I think many westerners lack the knowledge of eastern europe and what happened there. (mainly americans)
Golden Ages exist in the minds of modern peoples who look backwards through time with very rosy-tinted glasses and want to imagine a time when things were better than they are today. Many Arabs reference the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, French dream of Louis XIV, the English Victorian times, the CHinese the Qin or Ming dynasties, etc.
Golden ages tend to have a few characteristics, and it's important to note that these characteristics exist in perception more often than in reality:
1. Our state/country/people/region/etc. group was powerful and able to resist the will of other, usually more powerful foes, as well as sometimes being able to impose our will on them.
2. Was perceived as being important by peer countries, regions, etc., usually as evidenced through being included in important discussions over conferences, treaties or decisions of the day.
3. Was prosperous, our ports or merchant cities were bustling, and we ended up with lots of fancy art and buildings to prove it.
4. We were sooooooooooooooo happy then....
Most of this was a chimera, or less politely put, a load of bull****, ignoring many realities. For all the fawning over Victorian times, the average English person lived a life that was far lower in quality and also much shorter than that of Englishmen today. Weren't those cholera outbreaks in 1850s London so entertaining?!? Ditto (times 10) for Frenchmen under Louis XIV. I always imagine when those Renaissance fairs roll around that someday they'll try to re-enact how most Europeans experienced the Renaissance era: stop most personal hygiene, get yourself a nice little hovel to live in (complete with insect, bacterial and viral infestations), do back-breaking labor from sunrise to sunset, occasionally do that back-breaking labor on the local nobleman's estate for free, get conscripted occasionally to die needlessly as arrow or cannon fodder in wars about whose purpose you know nothing, in some regions allow your womenfolk to be raped (legally) by the local nobleman prior to their marriage, give away huge portions of your produce and income to the nobleman and church in taxes and tithes, and wait out each winter with plagues and famines stalking you. Now that was the life!
So, that all said, most Poles today look back to the union(s) with Lithuania as their "golden age". The first was through a personal union as Lithuania's native ruling dynasty joined in 1385 with the Anjou dynasty then ruling Poland to form the Jagiellonian dynasty, which thereafter ruled both countries and lasted until 1572. It was a creaky alliance but it served its purpose of countering both the Teutonic Order (Deutsches Ritter) and the Ottoman Empire, as well as helping stabilize the region enough for both countries to develop. In 1569, in the midst of a war with Moscow (during which Sweden was an ally, BTW), the last Jagiellonian king realized he had no son and the dynasty was doomed, and in any event there had been problems between the Polish and Lithuanian militaries in coordinating efforts, so the two countries signed the Union of Lublin which formally united both states into one country, created what we call in Polish Rzeczpospolita, or in Lithuanian, ečpospolitas, very roughly meaning "the Commonwealth". The Commonwealth is most remembered for being both powerful -- with many military successes to its credit -- and prosperous, though again that prosperity was relative and not experienced by all. For instance, the old royal capital of Kraków was abandoned as the Baltic grain trade made northern Poland more wealthy, and from 1598 onwards Warszawa ("Warsaw", in English) became the capital. It was also, in our modern terms, a huge "multi-ethnic" state, to such an extent that it was forced to enact religious tolerance laws because of the large numbers of Protestants, Jews, Orthodox Christians and Muslims (with some 100 mosques reported functioning in the Commonwealth in 1680). Most Poles today recount its martial triumphs, such as occupying Moscow in 1610-13, indeed, repeatedly defeating Russia in these times, and most famously halting larger Ottoman forces at Chocim/Hotyn in 1621 & 1672, and at Vienna in 1683.
The Commonwealth had some built-in political weaknesses, however, among them (most famously) being a very democratic form of government for its nobility (exclusively), so democratic in fact that as the 17th century waned, Commonwealth politics became anarchic and easily susceptible to outside manipulation (read: "corruption"). It lasted until 1795, but in reality it was virtually destroyed in a series of wars lasting from 1648-73 in which rebellious Cossacks, Russians, Swedes, Brandenburgers, Transylvanians and Ottoman Turks invaded and though the Commonwealth managed to drive out these invaders for the most part, it was afterwards a mere shadow of its former self with its cities plundered and destroyed, its economy ruined, and hundreds of thousands of its young men laying in graves across Eastern Europe. I wrote a mini-article about these wars here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=59190, as well as the subsequent siege of Vienna: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=58674. At this point of the Commonwealth's weakness, a new power was rising nearby with many complaints about its treatment by the Commonwealth, and so begins the long modern story of Russia's manipulation and control of Poland and Lithuania.
Again, though, while there is a long story of improvement of living conditions for average peasants and etc, in Poland from c. 1300 onwards through much of the Jagiellonian era, the period of the Commonwealth -- which was when Poland-Lithuania was most powerful and wealthiest -- saw, for the most part, a sharp decline in living standards and conditions for Polish peasants and others, largely because the Commonwealth was an era of noble, particularly aristocratic rule, so that by the 18th century it was downright hellish to be a Polish peasant. Of course, that was before actual direct Russian rule, which would introduce a whole new meaning of "hellish" to Polish peasants.... Some good music to listen to is Henryk Górecki's Muzyka starapolska ("Music of Old Poland"), which was written as a sort of commemoration of the Commonwealth.
Golden ages tend to have a few characteristics, and it's important to note that these characteristics exist in perception more often than in reality:
1. Our state/country/people/region/etc. group was powerful and able to resist the will of other, usually more powerful foes, as well as sometimes being able to impose our will on them.
2. Was perceived as being important by peer countries, regions, etc., usually as evidenced through being included in important discussions over conferences, treaties or decisions of the day.
3. Was prosperous, our ports or merchant cities were bustling, and we ended up with lots of fancy art and buildings to prove it.
4. We were sooooooooooooooo happy then....
Most of this was a chimera, or less politely put, a load of bull****, ignoring many realities. For all the fawning over Victorian times, the average English person lived a life that was far lower in quality and also much shorter than that of Englishmen today. Weren't those cholera outbreaks in 1850s London so entertaining?!? Ditto (times 10) for Frenchmen under Louis XIV. I always imagine when those Renaissance fairs roll around that someday they'll try to re-enact how most Europeans experienced the Renaissance era: stop most personal hygiene, get yourself a nice little hovel to live in (complete with insect, bacterial and viral infestations), do back-breaking labor from sunrise to sunset, occasionally do that back-breaking labor on the local nobleman's estate for free, get conscripted occasionally to die needlessly as arrow or cannon fodder in wars about whose purpose you know nothing, in some regions allow your womenfolk to be raped (legally) by the local nobleman prior to their marriage, give away huge portions of your produce and income to the nobleman and church in taxes and tithes, and wait out each winter with plagues and famines stalking you. Now that was the life!
So, that all said, most Poles today look back to the union(s) with Lithuania as their "golden age". The first was through a personal union as Lithuania's native ruling dynasty joined in 1385 with the Anjou dynasty then ruling Poland to form the Jagiellonian dynasty, which thereafter ruled both countries and lasted until 1572. It was a creaky alliance but it served its purpose of countering both the Teutonic Order (Deutsches Ritter) and the Ottoman Empire, as well as helping stabilize the region enough for both countries to develop. In 1569, in the midst of a war with Moscow (during which Sweden was an ally, BTW), the last Jagiellonian king realized he had no son and the dynasty was doomed, and in any event there had been problems between the Polish and Lithuanian militaries in coordinating efforts, so the two countries signed the Union of Lublin which formally united both states into one country, created what we call in Polish Rzeczpospolita, or in Lithuanian, ečpospolitas, very roughly meaning "the Commonwealth". The Commonwealth is most remembered for being both powerful -- with many military successes to its credit -- and prosperous, though again that prosperity was relative and not experienced by all. For instance, the old royal capital of Kraków was abandoned as the Baltic grain trade made northern Poland more wealthy, and from 1598 onwards Warszawa ("Warsaw", in English) became the capital. It was also, in our modern terms, a huge "multi-ethnic" state, to such an extent that it was forced to enact religious tolerance laws because of the large numbers of Protestants, Jews, Orthodox Christians and Muslims (with some 100 mosques reported functioning in the Commonwealth in 1680). Most Poles today recount its martial triumphs, such as occupying Moscow in 1610-13, indeed, repeatedly defeating Russia in these times, and most famously halting larger Ottoman forces at Chocim/Hotyn in 1621 & 1672, and at Vienna in 1683.
The Commonwealth had some built-in political weaknesses, however, among them (most famously) being a very democratic form of government for its nobility (exclusively), so democratic in fact that as the 17th century waned, Commonwealth politics became anarchic and easily susceptible to outside manipulation (read: "corruption"). It lasted until 1795, but in reality it was virtually destroyed in a series of wars lasting from 1648-73 in which rebellious Cossacks, Russians, Swedes, Brandenburgers, Transylvanians and Ottoman Turks invaded and though the Commonwealth managed to drive out these invaders for the most part, it was afterwards a mere shadow of its former self with its cities plundered and destroyed, its economy ruined, and hundreds of thousands of its young men laying in graves across Eastern Europe. I wrote a mini-article about these wars here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=59190, as well as the subsequent siege of Vienna: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=58674. At this point of the Commonwealth's weakness, a new power was rising nearby with many complaints about its treatment by the Commonwealth, and so begins the long modern story of Russia's manipulation and control of Poland and Lithuania.
Again, though, while there is a long story of improvement of living conditions for average peasants and etc, in Poland from c. 1300 onwards through much of the Jagiellonian era, the period of the Commonwealth -- which was when Poland-Lithuania was most powerful and wealthiest -- saw, for the most part, a sharp decline in living standards and conditions for Polish peasants and others, largely because the Commonwealth was an era of noble, particularly aristocratic rule, so that by the 18th century it was downright hellish to be a Polish peasant. Of course, that was before actual direct Russian rule, which would introduce a whole new meaning of "hellish" to Polish peasants.... Some good music to listen to is Henryk Górecki's Muzyka starapolska ("Music of Old Poland"), which was written as a sort of commemoration of the Commonwealth.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Great post, Vrylakas.
I was wondering... do you know as much about all European history as you know about Hungary (which I think you studied, right?) and Poland? Because if the first variant is true, then
!
I was wondering... do you know as much about all European history as you know about Hungary (which I think you studied, right?) and Poland? Because if the first variant is true, then
!
St Exupère
Warlord
There are 2 massive civilizational threats to christianism in Europe: secular relativism and islam. The former has subdued christianism as a social model almost everywhere, but mechanically the room this has created for the latter will inevitably provoke a reaction of christian minorities in Europe. A political, moral, cultural, even scientific reaction (along the lines of what happened in the USA). I am not saying that this reaction, or renaissance, will succeed everywhere of even in most of the continent, but it will happen (I can already testify everyday it is happening).
My second prediction is a mechanical consequence of my first prediction, based on the fact that contrary to heresis, schisms eventually do get resolved. Based on the fact also that due to recent tragic History, christian renaissance will be much stronger in Eastern Europe.
St Exupère;5637452 said:
Even if there were a reaction by Christian minorities, that would not be enough to turn the minorities into majorities. Even supposing that you're right that there will be some massive resurgence in Christianity in Europe, I can't think of anything like that ever happening before (unless you count the resurgence of the churches after periods of persecution, such as fourth-century Rome, nineteenth-century France, or late twentieth-century Russia - but obviously those are very different situations). The US model isn't really appropriate, because Christianity never became a minority there. The churches suffered in the 1960s like elsewhere in the west, but not nearly as much; and the key difference between the US and western Europe and Canada is that the decline of Christianity continued after the 1960s elsewhere but the decline stopped after the 1960s in the US. The reasons for that are complex and still not well understood, but the point is that in the US Christianity didn't decline as it did elsewhere - not that it declined and then recovered.
St Exupère;5637452 said:
Schisms occasionally get resolved, but it happens very rarely, and the bigger the schism the less likely it is to get resolved. Whilst there has certainly been raprochement between the Catholic and Orthodox churches in the last fifty years, I don't believe that anything like union could realistically happen; even if there weren't important doctrinal and structural differences between them, the sheer inertia of having been separate for many centuries is almost impossible to overcome. Anyway, I did start a thread for discussing this sort of thing.
Getting this vaguely back on-topic, it is very uncertain what the future holds for the churches of eastern Europe, including Poland. The Orthodox churches are still struggling with the legacy of communism, not least the fact that they are having to "catch up" with the theological developments of the rest of the world over the past fifty years, against which they were rather insulated when they were more concerned about sheer survival. Many of the Orthodox churches of eastern Europe have clung to a retrenched conservatism in reaction to theological liberalism, and this may cause them to become marginalised in their own cultures. For Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant churches alike, there are also internal divisions from the communist days; many Christians opposed communism because it was socially illiberal, while other Christians opposed communism because it was materalist and humanist; during communism these Christians were all on the same side, but now they are not. This applies to the Catholic Church in Poland as well. Of course the church there enjoyed a huge boost under John Paul II, who became something of a national hero when he became pope and was something of an anti-communism rallying figure. After communism collapsed, the Catholic Church returned briefly to its old position of authority in Poland, but within only a few years many Poles, especially the younger generation, were sick of this. In 1990 the Catholic Church tried to unify church and state in Poland, which failed, but it did succeed in restricting abortion rights, birth control availability, and so on. This had the effect of massively undermining their popularity, and so the pendulum swung back the other way. Polls throughout the 1990s show most people in Poland wanting the church to have less influence.
In other words, the future of the churches in Poland, as in the rest of eastern Europe, is really uncertain. Moreover, I can't see events within the churches there having a huge amount of influence in western Europe. Even if there were a revival of the eastern churches, this would not mean much to most western Europeans, because events within the Orthodox Church are irrelevant to most western Europeans. Events within the Catholic Church are rather more relevant to at least some western Europeans, but only to those who are already active members of it. In the unlikely event of there ever being a major Christian revival in western Europe, I would say that it would probably be Protestant in nature, and it would be far more likely to be inspired by African Christianity than by eastern European Christianity.
St Exupère
Warlord
This is an extremely interesting post. I will come back to it tomorrow.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
From the East and in the East; Western Europe is not going to see any great revival of religion any time soon. People these days don't need God, they've no reason to embrace the madness that it took so long to shake off.St Exupère;5634975 said:
Besides, I don't think that the Catholic/Orthodox schism is going to end anytime soon, especially since the increase in religious enthusiasm that you suggest would, in all likelihood, just lead to an increase in sectarian rivalry, not to the re-union of a thousand year old schism. I've heard talk of an Anglican/Catholic reunion, but that was in response to falling interest in religion, not an increasing one.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
You do realize some posters here are Christians, right? I'm sure if I would call Atheism madness I'd get warned or something like that. For your information, in this part of Europe religion is increasing, and here it's embraced by 98% of the people, look on wiki if you don't believe me (91.5% Orthodox, 7% Catholic, 1.3% other - mainly Protestants in some regions and some very few Muslims in the ex-Turkish dominated area, and 1.2 Atheists).
For the record, 4 churches (significant, not very small ones) have been built in Bucharest this year, although it is known as the "city with 400 churches" for almost 100 years, and it's only July. I can agree with the part with "Western Europe is not going to see any great revival of religion any time soon", but definitely not with the part "People these days don't need God, they've no reason to embrace the madness that it took so long to shake off". That's trolling.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Yep, and as a fully baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic I am fully within my rights to say whatever I like about religion. After all, who are you to a Catholic that they can't criticise their own religion?
I'm quite aware that religion is increasing in Eastern Europe, but that's not what I argued with- I said that the West no longer needs religion.
Wikipedia said:
Difference.Wikipedia said:
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Yep, and as a fully baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic I am fully within my rights to say whatever I like about religion. After all, who are you to a Catholic that they can't criticise their own religion?
Difference.
I definitely understand that you can criticize your religion, but it appeared to me as you were saying nobody "needs" God now. That would have been trolling IMO.
BTW about freedom of speech:
Forum Rules said:
Of course what you said wasn't violating any rule at all if you didn't mean what I thought at first that you did, but just had to bring this up as a counter argument against your freedom of speech quote.
Ok so let's go back on topic now: Poland's Golden Age.
Pokurcz
Emperor
Well I would like to point out that you do not have to be a nationalist to claim that Poland had a "Golden Age" any more than if one would claim that Sweden had a golden age (in the seventeenth century).
Your post is a perfect example of a claim that has often made me upset and react in a way that often is seen as nationalism on my part. (I usually get upset over those things if I am already upset over something else/not feeling to well
)Specifically what I try to explain to people over and over again (usually "westerners") is that because of Poland having been hidden behind the Iron Curtain for some fifty years (of coarse there are other reasons as well), "westerners" have very scant knowledge about Poland.
Because they haven't heard/read much about Polish history they automatically base their opinion of Poland on the countries recent history which they do not find impressive, and usually when they delve a little deeper they read about the misfortunes that befell Poland in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and apparently loose interest in the rest of its history and form their unfavorable opinion.
This is of coarse purely a matter of a lack of knowledge and there for of understanding, a problem that many other eastern countries suffer from as well. The remedy, naturally is knowledge, which the OP commendably is looking for, unlike some other posters I have stumbled upon in this very forum, one notable one who actually found Polish civilization pathetic, a rather rude claim, one that says more about the poster that the matter at hand, but unfortunately perfectly illustrates the common western view of the east, at least according to my own experiences.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
^^^^ This posts is one of the best posts i've seen. It completely explains what i've been explaining about westerners not knowing much about Polish history.
Swedishguy
Deity
By saying absolutelty nothing about Polish history? I'm a bit dubious.
